3 ms·

Like what? This is one of the few bits that I honestly didn't understand because it felt so specific and without further explanation. Can you elaborate?

dcminter 6y ago
It's a quotation from "The Princess Bride" so mostly a joke. The land war the movie is referring to is Vietnam, not generally considered an American success story. In the movie the humour comes from the incongruity of the fantasy setting with the knowing political aside.
- fnord123 6y ago
  >The land war the movie is referring to is Vietnam From Hansard: https://bit.ly/2V7BgbK https://bit.ly/2V7BgbK > The next war on land will be very different from the last one, in that we shall have to fight it in a different way. In reaching a decision on that matter, we must first be clear about certain rules of war. Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives, and an army fighting there would be engulfed by what is known as the Ming Bing, the people's insurgents.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    And then the next paragraph goes: > The more I study the problem of future war, which I do a good deal, the more I reach the conclusion that air power and sea power will provide the main offensive punch in an unlimited nuclear war of the future. Their offensive power must be mobile. Land power will be essential as a direct "stop" on the ground, in order to protect vital territories and peoples. But the strategy of those who fight on land will be defensive, since any considerable movement will not be possible owing to the terrific destruction caused to communications by nuclear bombardment, as well as by the movement of refugees. This latter is a terrific problem, and during the ten years in which I served in Supreme Headquarters in Europe, we never could get the refugee problem seriously tackled. The sea must be exploited increasingly to give surface strategical mobility, and to provide mobile launching sites for nuclear weapons. At which point I'm starting to feel sick in my stomach and decide to abandon reading whatever it is that I was just reading. I'm already in a bad head space thanks to COVID-19, I don't want to contemplate the realities of a world in the middle of a war in which nuclear weapons are used as actual weapons.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- CPLX 6y ago
  Vietnam plus the myriad of European leaders who have tried to march East.
redis_mlc 6y ago
It means 2 related things: 1) Outside armies have a poor track record in winning wars in Asia. History books are full of those failures ... 2) because most Asian countries have millions of citizens to conscript, on their home turf, and not many centralized targets to bomb, the battle is asymmetrical. Each soldier just needs an AK-47 and directions to the front. In the US-Korean War, China just kept pouring troops over the border until the US was overwhelmed, which illustrates the "millions" part. Same against Japan in WW2. Japanese victories became slower and slower as China mobilized human waves against them. The Japanese military told everyone the entire war would take weeks, but it extended into years. In Afghanistan, the Russians gave up on defined battles and went with genocide (poisoning wells, shooting on sight, etc.)
pfranz 6y ago
The sibling comment describes the truth behind the quote, but the most famous (contemporary pop culture) source of it is the movie The Princess Bride.

dcminter 6y ago

It's a quotation from "The Princess Bride" so mostly a joke. The land war the movie is referring to is Vietnam, not generally considered an American success story. In the movie the humour comes from the incongruity of the fantasy setting with the knowing political aside.

fnord123 6y ago
>The land war the movie is referring to is Vietnam From Hansard: https://bit.ly/2V7BgbK https://bit.ly/2V7BgbK > The next war on land will be very different from the last one, in that we shall have to fight it in a different way. In reaching a decision on that matter, we must first be clear about certain rules of war. Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives, and an army fighting there would be engulfed by what is known as the Ming Bing, the people's insurgents.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  And then the next paragraph goes: > The more I study the problem of future war, which I do a good deal, the more I reach the conclusion that air power and sea power will provide the main offensive punch in an unlimited nuclear war of the future. Their offensive power must be mobile. Land power will be essential as a direct "stop" on the ground, in order to protect vital territories and peoples. But the strategy of those who fight on land will be defensive, since any considerable movement will not be possible owing to the terrific destruction caused to communications by nuclear bombardment, as well as by the movement of refugees. This latter is a terrific problem, and during the ten years in which I served in Supreme Headquarters in Europe, we never could get the refugee problem seriously tackled. The sea must be exploited increasingly to give surface strategical mobility, and to provide mobile launching sites for nuclear weapons. At which point I'm starting to feel sick in my stomach and decide to abandon reading whatever it is that I was just reading. I'm already in a bad head space thanks to COVID-19, I don't want to contemplate the realities of a world in the middle of a war in which nuclear weapons are used as actual weapons.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
CPLX 6y ago
Vietnam plus the myriad of European leaders who have tried to march East.

redis_mlc 6y ago

It means 2 related things: 1) Outside armies have a poor track record in winning wars in Asia. History books are full of those failures ... 2) because most Asian countries have millions of citizens to conscript, on their home turf, and not many centralized targets to bomb, the battle is asymmetrical. Each soldier just needs an AK-47 and directions to the front. In the US-Korean War, China just kept pouring troops over the border until the US was overwhelmed, which illustrates the "millions" part. Same against Japan in WW2. Japanese victories became slower and slower as China mobilized human waves against them. The Japanese military told everyone the entire war would take weeks, but it extended into years. In Afghanistan, the Russians gave up on defined battles and went with genocide (poisoning wells, shooting on sight, etc.)

pfranz 6y ago

The sibling comment describes the truth behind the quote, but the most famous (contemporary pop culture) source of it is the movie The Princess Bride.